I think the FSLabs will be the best overall Airbus A320 we will get for FSX. But, in all honesty, I don't need it to be simulated to the nth degree. I just want a somewhat faithfully simulated aircraft with options simulated that I would actually used: this is exactly what the Aerosoft Airbus X Extended will be.

 

I used to fly the Airbus X after having installed some tweaks for the FBW and throttles, and afterwards it quickly became one of my favorite aircraft. In a way I liked it more than the PMDG 737NGX, but I guess that's because I have started to like Airbus more than Boeing in general (although I still think the MD-11 is the golden mix of Boeing and Airbus!). I deeply appreciate what Aerosoft is trying to do, and I will buy their Airbus and stick with it. I will not be shelling out extra money for the FSLabs, in order to get another Airbus filled with features that I wouldn't use anyway, just like I don't use 75% of the options/buttons/switches in the PMDG 737NGX.

Anyone in here still remembers Simsoftworkshop's (SSW) attempt on developing an Airbus A32X rendition? I think only two previews of the 2D panel were shown and the team was pretty euphoric getting the aircraft done at the time.

 

A little later the group vanished into thin air including their Airbus A310 - which really had potential in my eyes.

 

I hope that's not the common fate virtual Airbus developers have to face in that business. :huh:

I tend to agree with Thralni on this one. If Aerosoft really gets their plane right it will probably be the best option for most normal simmers. I love the NGX, but I don't fly from the right seat or use the advanced failure options nor do I know so much about the plane to be able to appreciate odd realistic quirks in the plane. I love that they are there, but I wouldn't realistically miss them if they were gone.

I have no doubt the FS Labs bus will be great, but there is bound to be cost to the complexity. Aerosoft's approach to the extended version really appeals to me and if they really have realistic systems for normal operations with great performance as well, that seems to be perfect for me.

 

I will undoubtedly buy the FS Labs version anyway for my curiosity, but if Aerosoft achieves what they have aimed for, I can't see how that could be improved upon from my point of view.

Developing a bus is not really that much more difficult than developing any other plane. The only real difference is the FBW

Done it before have you? ^_^

I dont think you actually have to have experience developing planes to understand this. You simply need to have the ability to apply logic and reasoning to solve a problem. There's no "magic" involved in Airbus that isnt a factor at say McDonnell Douglas

blackbox is pretty good in fact, systems is not finished yet becouse its work in progres, v 0.54 right now. But blackbox is a way better than wilco, FBW is awesome. And v 0.55 will bring on more systems, HD graphics, redux stile lights etc... This is what i know for now... FS Labs is expected to be the best, for sure. But Blackbox is maybe the best at the moment, you can compare it with wilco anyway...

 

I bought BlackBox (0.54) last week and cannot agree with this.

 

The FCU modes are absolutely chaotic. AP/FD/AT all seem to have a life of their own. On take-off in CLB (Managed) the aircraft switches to 274kts as soon as Flaps are put up! ...... Many other examples. Hand flying FBW may be nice but FCU control and logic is miles off yet.

Done it before have you? ^_^

 

:lol: That's what I would ask as well. If it were that easy, most of everyone else would have succeeded. And FSLabs would have delivered their looooooooooong time ago. However, as we have noticed is NOT easy. There are about 10 Boeings out there for every Airbus attmept.

 

I bought BlackBox (0.54) last week and cannot agree with this.

 

The FCU modes are absolutely chaotic. AP/FD/AT all seem to have a life of their own. On take-off in CLB (Managed) the aircraft switches to 274kts as soon as Flaps are put up! ...... Many other examples. Hand flying FBW may be nice but FCU control and logic is miles off yet.

 

And you may well be right (but haven't heard anyone else say the same); however, may I respectfully suggest that you uninstall and reinstall..And, very important read (study) the material on how to correctly fly this a/c. it is NOT you typical Boeing craft.

:lol: That's what I would ask as well. If it were that easy, most of everyone else would have succeeded. And FSLabs would have delivered their looooooooooong time ago. However, as we have noticed is NOT easy. There are about 10 Boeings out there for every Airbus attmept.

...

Look at the names of the companies that tried to make a bus. These are not exactly industry leading companies or anything, they are a mix of newcomers and companies that have proven before that they are incompetent. There are no PMDGs, Level-Ds or Leonardo SHs on that list. I'd wager that incompetency is the reason why these companies have failed, not the supposedly difficult nature of simulating an Airbus

Look at the names of the companies that tried to make a bus. These are not exactly industry leading companies or anything, they are a mix of newcomers and companies that have proven before that they are incompetent. There are no PMDGs, Level-Ds or Leonardo SHs on that list. I'd wager that incompetency is the reason why these companies have failed, not the supposedly difficult nature of simulating an Airbus

 

I understand what you're saying. I actually own almost every professional product PSS developed, especially the Airbus series. I printed the studying material that came with the product and I can tell you I had 3 large binders to read and study, until I learned to fly it. So, I can assure PSS was/is far from incompetent...And this was several years ago for FS2004... Today, we've come a long way. Better technology, better hardware and software. Developers have learned a lot about FS, etc.etc.

 

--- I don't know if you knew this, but PMDG announced they would develop the Airbus series, a few years ago. With no explanation whatsoever, they changed their mind and never gave an explanation or reason why? The challenge was/beyond the capabilities for an Airbus? We don't know!

There are no PMDGs, Level-Ds or Leonardo SHs on that list.

There's FSL, they've already proven themselves with their Concorde X, and have the experience of developers working for them who come from many different well regarded companies. Heck Lefteris the CEO at FSL was previously the lead developer at PMDG, Andrew Wilson has worked with SSTSIM and many of their other developers are extreemly experienced.

 

Furthermore, to add to that, FSL currently has a very large team of real world, A320 Captains, First Officers and Engineers working with them day in day out, getting figures from the real aircraft, testing things out in Level D Sims for them, measuring dimensions, taking photos, gathering data, providing documents, listing off the different quirks of operating the Bus, her handling, the funny things she does that only real pilots or engineers would recognise and spot immediately when they fly this rendition of the bus ect. There's almost always someone either in the air or in the Level D or working on a real aircraft in the hanger gathering data for them or comparing the FSL model to the real one. The amount of input FSL has on their bus is nothing short of jaw dropping...

 

I'm sure AS also has a great team behind them too doing their bus.

 

Just my €0.02

 

Regards,

Ró.

I agree with Ronan, concerning FSL!

 

They have the pedigree, and precedence,to develop a truly spectacular piece of software.

Done it before have you? ^_^

wims80

quit while your behind mate.don't want to sound like i'm ganging up here.but you are being very nieve.whether this an attempt to create a bit of a stir,not sure.

 

steve-0

Hey Ronan, you forgot to mention the very good testers at FSL. Eh eh!

Look at the names of the companies that tried to make a bus. These are not exactly industry leading companies or anything, they are a mix of newcomers and companies that have proven before that they are incompetent. There are no PMDGs, Level-Ds or Leonardo SHs on that list. I'd wager that incompetency is the reason why these companies have failed, not the supposedly difficult nature of simulating an Airbus

 

I don't think it was incompetency that sank those projects, but rather those developers approached these projects as hobbyists and didn't use any proper project management techniques e.g. PMBOK. IT/Software development is very risky with regards to delays and cost overruns and any team who wants to make money out of payware addons must have a tight management style with accurate estimates, tight project scope and knowledge in managing virtual teams spread around the world. I expect Rob at PMDG would be staring at his MS project Gantt chart every single day, looking at the critical path, deadlines, milestones and resource allocation. This is also the reason why I think Lefteris and FSLabs will succeed because he came from PMDG and he should know what makes that company successful.

 

A complex Airbus is a very difficult undertaking IMHO because of the Autotrim and how it reacts with various flight envelope protections, and what happens during transitions in flight laws e.g. From Normal law to Alternate law to Direct law. The autothrottle also seems to have a mind of its own with regards to flight envelope protections. Then you have to think about how this FBW system interacts with various joystick (or even yoke) setups. And then you have to think about how the FMGS can compute the flight path using stuff like "Groundspeed mini" and other obscure data and give it to the autopilot which have its own obscure logic. (e.g. You cannot find how the bank limiter works by looking at the aircraft manual/FCOM, you have to find it in one of the Honeywell manuals.)

 

However developing an Airbus can also have very significant advantages, as the underlying systems simulation can easily be scaled to a variety of very popular aircraft ranging from the A318 to the A340, or even the A380.

 

--- I don't know if you knew this, but PMDG announced they would develop the Airbus series, a few years ago. With no explanation whatsoever, they changed their mind and never gave an explanation or reason why? The challenge was/beyond the capabilities for an Airbus? We don't know!

 

PMDG has a lot of support from Boeing engineers and pilots plus privileged access to their technical documents so It's only reasonable that PMDG should "milk it" for as long as possible. PMDG is a business and developing an Airbus would be a relative waste of time and resources.